On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Stepan Kasal <skasal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:00:30PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > 2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on > > behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the > > Project: > > > > * (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, > > royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, > > prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, > > sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative > > works; and, > > > > [...] the contributor is [...] granting a copyright LICENSE > > to red hat. > > my understanding is that the contributor is granting to RH a license > to distribute, etc. I see no reason why that right should be limited > by any other license contained within the contribution or implied by > a context. > Sorry I can't parse the above. All I can say is that legal code is not computer code.. there is a reason why lawyers have to spend years studying it to make sense of things.. it is not a simple binary logic and has to rely on lots of stuff that is implied by context, history of agreements, precedent of earlier agreements (which precedent is binding in what location and which one takes precedent over which etc etc.) -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
